This is really unfortunate. Bowman had a choice between doing what he thought was right and oppose Israel's invasion of Gaza or keep his head down and probably get reelected.
I feel this is a great example of the Overton window in action, and AOC easily winning her primary shows how broadly the window can vary even in adjacent districts.
Bowman was the better candidate. No doubt. But he isn't without fault. Many in the district had legitimate complaints about his focus. Not even pertaining to Israel. It's a shame so many people when feeling let down by representation can gravitate to worse candidates. Simply because they're someone else. And not a better candidate.
AIPAC didn't spend this big to get AOC out though.
Why do you think that is?
My opinion and all the evidence I've seen is that It's because AOC wasn't vulnerable.
Polls from March show Bowman was already in trouble as far back as March. Bowman's campaign (the Upswing research poll) showed Latimer and Bowman were essentially tied. That's bad for an incumbant. The AIPAC poll from the Melman group around the same time showed an overwhelming preference for Latimer over Bowman. That's when the AIPAC started pouring money in to the campaign to exploit that weakness.
The AIPAC research showed Bowman was vulnerable, similar to why the AIPAC is spending big to replace Cori Bush but they are essentially leaving Ilhan Omar (so far).
The AIPAC analysts are highly skilled at collecting and analyzing data. This allows them to know how and where to spend their money to get the maximum return on their investment. They aren't going to waste money trying to defeat a candidate like AOC who is still largely popular with their constituents.
We can pretend democracy is functional and do the justifying in hindsight.
Fact is AIPAC and Republicans bought Jamaal Bowman away with 15 million dollars and beat him by 10%. Bit of an elephant in the room. Bowman was one of the first to really stand up against israel.
Comparing to Cori Bush is difficult. Your article claims AIPAC spent 320K against Cori which is far less than 15 million.
Why didn't the AIPAC spend $15 million to buy AOCs seat as well if that's all there is to it?
I think something you may not be taking into account is that Bowman's district was redrawn since he first got elected, drastically changing his constituency:
The congressional district’s boundaries have shifted since Bowman first won office in 2020, losing most of its sections in the Bronx and adding more of Westchester County’s suburbs. Today, 21% of its voting-age population is Black and 42% is non-Hispanic white, according to U.S. Census figures, compared to 30% Black and 34% white in the district as it existed through 2022. Bowman is Black. Latimer is white.
This change made him particularly susceptible to a primary challenge, regardless of PAC spending.
This article shows the AIPAC has contributed almost $900 thousand to Wesley Bell's campaign as of April 30th. This isn't total spending in the race, just direct campaign contributions. Still less than they contributed to the Latimer's campaign for sure, but not insignificant. We're still almost 6 weeks until the Missouri primary election which is when the spending usually ramps up. To do an apples to apples comparison at this point in time would take more time than I care to invest but I'd love to see the results if you want to do it. Regardless of the exact figures, it's clear the AIPAC is targeting only specific progressive Democratic candidates, and it seems to me the reason they're doing so is because the candidates are already politically vulnerable.
Also Latimer beat Bowman by nearly 17% per NBC news.
AOC is not a fierce opponent of israel. She recently invited a Zionist lobbyist on her live-stream to tell everyone that criticism of israel is anti-semitism.
Jamaal Bowman however has accused israel of committing Genocide and was one of the first to call for a permanent ceasefire in Gaza. Things we cannot say about AOC nor Bernie Sanders.
This Genocide has forced everyone to take off the mask and show what side they are truly on.
I know it's hard to provide a source for a negative, but do you have any showing she is friendly to Israel and the AIPAC?
These suggest she is harshly critical of Israel, the AIPAC, and the invasion of Gaza: CNN, March 2024
NY Times, September 2021 This article shows a history of being critical of supporting Israel
Times of Israel, November 2023 This is a biased source, but it contains the tweets where AOC directly condemned the AIPAC
NY Times, November 2023 MSNBC, June 2024
The last article seems to be about the "Zionist lobbyist on her live-stream", where AOC said:
Criticism of the Israeli government is not inherently antisemitic and criticism of zionism is not automatically antisemitic. That being true does not mean that we should not recognize criticism and when that criticism crosses a line into real harms against our Jewish community.
Do you have the quote where she said "criticism is Israel is antisemitism"?
Conveniently your timeline doesn't start early in the Genocide as she was a great supporter of the Genocide of Palestinians until her voter base was completely to the left of her. Just like Bernie "controlled opposition" Sanders
She platformed people saying it without pushing back. https://youtu.be/L2kIEVNrflY
One of my links shows AOC has opposed the genocide of Palestinians since 2021. How far back do we need to go?
It's pretty apparent you have no evidence to support any of your claims and are trying to move your own goal posts.
At this point you're just spreading misinformation and poorly trying to push some kind of weird narrative.
Have a good day.
In the end I have to respect the choice to not support the genocide. I get that it has repercussions but I don't think I would choose a different path. Have to go with respect on this one.
I respect sticking to his principles, but sometimes in politics you have to do something you find distasteful for the greater good.
We have no idea what would have happened had Bowman kept his head down about Israel, but we do know that speaking out against the invasion of Gaza and calling for a ceasefire didn't really move the needle on actually achieving a ceasefire. It did make him unpopular with his constituents and made him vulnerable to a primary challenger.
Now Bowman is probably going to lose his seat in congress and there's one less progressive voice and vote in congress.
I don't know what the full outcome of this will be, but sometimes doing the right thing causes more harm than good in the very morally gray area of politics.
Fuck aipac
The DNC and Democrats too.
More AIPAC influencing our government. Boo. Also RIP. We dont want to lose progressives right now.
And look at OP gloating downthread. He's so fucking happy that Netanyahu bought a candidate.
He's a virulent Zionist, so not surprised.
It's not like there are many who differ from him on the subject here. He's just saying the only part out loud.
I am so damn tired of the bad guys winning. Voters in this country are ignorant as fuck so money beats all.
Get used to it.
GOOD! I HATE Lawmakers who are beholden to Voters instead of BILLIONAIRE PACTS like AIPAC!
7:40pt
It's a 17% difference now. I'm honestly skeptical that AIPAC money is the big cause here. It seems like he had a lot of other issues that contributed to his loss. I was reading earlier that he didn't really communicate or interface with his constituents much, while Latimer was a much bigger community presence.
This is a trend I've noticed actually. A lot of people who do take morally correct positions like to let their positions speak for themselves and not do as much communication or outside engagement. They want to let their moral high ground do the talking. And while their positions are laudable, their core job is to represent their constituents. If they ignore that, a loss isn't surprising.
The Daily had a good piece about this race. Apparently AIPAC specifically targeted him because he already had that fire alarm thing tarnishing him, and his district had a strong challenger that people were very familiar with.
AIPAC knows money alone can’t win a race. They did what a lot of political action groups do now. They want to use their money effectively, so they specifically picked a race that looked like it could be influenced. Then they threw record breaking amounts of money at it.
Oh definitely. I just think their primary influence was on the size of the margin, not the actual outcome of the election. And it still benefits them, since they can say it was a 17% margin instead of like 3-5%.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Progressive Rep. Jamaal Bowman, D-N.Y., lost his primary Tuesday to a moderate challenger who was backed by pro-Israel groups, NBC News projected, following a bitter and expensive race that exposed the party’s divisions.
Nearly $15 million of that spending came from the United Democracy Project, a super PAC linked to the powerful pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which backed Latimer.
A former Bronx middle school principal, Bowman stormed Washington after unseating 16-term Rep. Eliot Engel, then the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and one of the most powerful Jewish lawmakers in Congress, in 2020.
As the Democratic nominee, Latimer will almost certainly be the next congressman from New York’s 16th district, a diverse area north of Manhattan that includes parts of the Bronx and south Westchester County.
Former CNN anchor John Avlon won the Democratic primary to take on GOP Rep. Nick LaLota, NBC News projects.
And Rep Tom Suozzi, who won a special election to take back his old Long Island-based seat, will face former state Assemblyman Mike LiPetri.
The original article contains 649 words, the summary contains 175 words. Saved 73%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News